Just read this conclusion from the second Snow White case in the
early 80's. Then, ask yourself, "Is the church of Scientology's
Office of Special Affairs (OSA) capable of this same sort of
behavior?"

Sound familar? Any wonder Scientology is a threat to democracy?

VII. Conclusion (Starting from page 32 of original)

The above recitation of evidence establishes beyond dispute the
massive and insidious nature of the crimes these two defendants
engaged in over the years, It also puts to rest their
protestation, articulated by Mary Sue Hubbard from the witness
stand, that they only burglarized Government offices and stole
Government documents because of some imaginary Governmental
harassment campaign against them.

The brazen and persistent burglaries and thefts directed against
the United States Government were but one minor aspect of the
defendants' wanton assault upon the laws of this country. The
well-orchestrated campaign to thwart the federal Grand Jury
inves-tigation by destroying evidence, giving false evidence in
response to a grand jury subpoena, harboring a fugitive,
kidnapping a crucial witness, preparing an elaborate cover-up
story, and as-sisting in the giving of false statements under
oath shows the contempt which these defendants had for the
judicial system of this country. Their total disregard for the
laws is further made clear by the criminal campaigns of
vilification, burglaries and thefts which they carried out
against private and public individuals and organizations,
carefully documented in minute detail. One can only wonder about
the crimes set forth in the documents secreted in their "Red
Box" data. That these defendants were willing to frame their
critics to the point of giving false testimony under oath
against them, and having them arrested and indicted speaks
legion for their disdain for The rule of law. Indeed, they
ar-rogantly placed themselves above the law meting out their
personal brand of punishment to those "guilty" of opposing their
selfish aims.

The crimes committed by these defendants is of a breadth and
scope previously unheard. No building, office, desk, or files
was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or
organiza-tion was free from their despicable scheming and warped
minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters,
look picks, secret codes, forged credentials, and any other
devices they found necessary to carry out their heinous schemes.
It is interesting to note that the Founder of their
organization, unindicted co-conspira-tor L. Ron Hubbard, wrote
in his dictionary entitled "Modern Manage-ment Technology
Defined" that "truth is what is true for you," and "illegal" is
that which is "contrary to statistics or policy" and not
pursuant to Scientology's "approved program." Thus, with the
Founder-Commodore's blessings they could wantonly commit crimes
as long as it was in the interest of Scientology.

These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in
success and sternly rebuked those that failed. The standards of
human conduct embodied in such practices represent no less than
the absolute perversion of any known ethical value system. In
view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants
have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in
the name of "religion." That these defendants now attempt to
hide be-hind the sacred principles of freedom of religion,
freedom of speech and the right to privacy -- which principles
they repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate with
impunity -- adds insult to the injuries which they have
inflicted on every element of society.

These defendants, their co-conspirators, their organization, and
any other individual or group that might consider committing
similar crimes, must be given a clear and convincing message:
criminal activities of the types engaged in here shall not be
tolerated by our society.

Moreover, we submit that in imposing any sentence upon these two
defendants, the Court should consider the deterrent effect a
severe sentence will have upon others -- besides the defendant
Jane Kember who apparently remains the Guardian World-Wide, all
other members of the Guardian's Office, and L. Ron Hubbard
himself, the ultimate responsible authority. It is clear from
the press re-leases issued by Scientology following the jury's
verdict, and their vicious actions against another member of
this Court, that they have yet to learn the errors of their
criminal ways.

The United States submits that the only appropriate punish-ment
in this case, the only one that is in the best interest of
justice and the public, is a substantial term of incarceration
for each of the two defendants now before the Court.

Moreover, we submit that there is no reason whatsoever under 18
U.S. Code 5 3148, why these two defendant should not be denied
bail pending any appeal they wish to take. Both defendants are
in this country solely for trial and the service of any sentence
imposed by this Court, pursuant to an extradition order from the
Government of the United Kingdom. Following the service of their
sentences, they will return to the United Kingdom. They are not
employed in the United States, and, indeed, in at least the case
of defendant Kember cannot be so employed, Thus, the only
questions which remain are, In the words of 18 U.S. Code 5 3148,
whether

[a] person . . . who has been convicted of an offense and . .
has filed an appeal . . . (presents) a risk of flight or danger
or if it appears that an appeal is frivolous or taken for delay.
. . .

We submit that in the Instant case, any appeal taken by these
two defendants will be frivolous-and taken only for the purpose
of delaying the ultimate day of judgment. The only real issues
raised by the defendants involved the challenge to the
jurisdiction of this Court over the burglary charges, and
whether they had standing to challenge the searches of the two
Guardian's Office premises in Los Angeles, California. The Court
of Appeals has already, for all practical purposes, resolved
against them the former issue. In Re: United States v. Kember
_(Mary Sue Hubbard et al. , appellants), D.C. Cir. Nos. 80-2329
to 80-2332 (decided November 24, 1980), slip op. at 11. As for
the standing issue, it has been conclusively resolved against
the defendants, as this Court pointed out, by the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the defendants, international crimi-nals, whose
danger to the community the evidence overwhelmingly bears out,
have been convicted of serious charges carrying severe penalties
and now present a great risk of flight. Thus, we submit
defendants should be denied bail pending appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLES F. C. RUFF, United States Attorney
RAYMON BANOUN, Assistant United States Attorney
JUDITH ETHERTON, Assistant United States Attorney
KATHERINE WINFREE, Assistant United States Attorney

- ---------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)

JANE KEMBER
MORRIS BUDLONG
a/k/a MO BUDLONG

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States of America respectfully submits this
Sentencing Memorandum to aid the Court in imposing sentence in
this case.

I.
Introduction

The defendants Jane Kember and Morris Budlong were each found
guilty, following a jury trial, of nine counts of aiding and
abetting burglary in the second degree. The evidence which led
the jury to return these guilty verdicts revealed that during
the years 1973 to 1976 the defendants ordered the commission of
brazen, systematic and persistent burglaries of United States
Government offices. Their purpose was to ransack these offices
of all documents of interest to the organization which they led
-- the Guardian's Office of the Church of Scientology -- in
order to secure total exemption from taxation and to protect
Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard. In the process, from
their headquarters in East Grinstead, England, they challenged
and attempted to undermine the Judicial and governmental
structure of the United States. They did so by fraudulently
using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a manner never
intended by the Congress of the United States.

As this Court heard, these defendants set about filing FOIA
requests with various Government agencies in order, inter alia,
to cause these agencies to gather all the requested documents in
a Central repository for the review process mandated by the
FOIA. Once the Guardian's office discovered where these
documents were located, they began a systematic pillaging of
that office-repeated and surreptitiously breaking into that
office, taking the documents, photocopying them with Government
equipment and supplies, and replacing them in the Government
files so that, in the words of defendant Budlong, these thefts
would not be uncovered.

Notwithstanding the fact that they had obtained illegally all
the documents they were seeking, they proceeded to file F0IA
suits in the courts of this country, complaining that the
particular Government agencies had not given them all the
documents to which they were entitled. Thus, they perpetrated a
fraud upon the American judicial system. They came into the
American courts with unclean hands, seeking documents which they
had already obtained by viola-ting the laws of the United
States. After abusing the trial courts, they proceeded to abuse
the appellate courts never disclosing that they were engaging in
litigation in bad faith, totally heedless of the waste of
judicial resources involved. Such conduct, which strikes at the
very heart of the Judicial system, cannot be tolerated.

These defendants additionally ordered the theft of documents and
memoranda of attorneys representing the United States
Government, a party against whom they had instituted a variety
of lawsuits. They did so to discover the attorneys' legal
strategy and gain an unfair strategic advantage in the courts.
In effect, they violated the attorney-client privilege of every
litigant who opposed them, a fact which they seek to obfuscate
by complaining in bad faith, that their own attorney-client
privileges were violated. Such conduct cannot be permitted in
our judicial system.

Once their emissaries were caught in the midst of one of their
criminal acts, the defendants orchestrated from England a
massive obstruction of the due administration of justice. Such
outrageous conduct, which, we submit, this Court can consider
under standards recognized by the Supreme Court, strikes at the
very heart of our judicial system-a system that has often, at
crucial times in our history, been the savior of our
institutions.

Moreover, a review of the documents seized from the two Los
Angeles, California, offices of the Guardian's office --
including log books of messages from these two defendants --
show the incredible and sweeping nature of the criminal conduct
of these defendants. Indeed, Guardian Program Order 158, and
some of the other orders in evidence, have already provided the
Court with a glimpse of this conduct. These crimes included: the
infiltration and theft of documents from a number of prominent
private, national, and world organizations, law firms,
newspapers, and private citizens; the execution of smear
campaigns and baseless law suits for the sole purpose of
destroying private individuals who had attempted to exercise
their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; the
framing of private citizens who had been critical of
Scientology, including the forging of documents which led to the
indictment of at least one innocent person; and violation of the
civil rights of prominent private citizens and public officials.
These are but a few of the criminal acts of these two defendants
which, we submit, give the Court a glimpse of the heinous and
vicious nature of their crimes.

In view of the severity of the crimes of which the defendants
Kember and Budlong were convicted, the high level of their
positions in the organizational hierarchy of the Guardian's
Office, compared with the positions held by their nine
co-defendants who were convicted after a non-jury trial based on
an uncontested stipulation of evidence, as well as the
additional information which we now bring to this Court's
attention, we submit that the public Interest demands the
imposition of substantial terms of incarceration. This Court
must make it clear beyond peradventure that the criminal conduct
of these two defendants cannot be countenanced, and that anyone
who sets about masterminding and executing the crimes of which
they were convicted, uses and then tampers with the judicial
system as they have, will be dealt with in the most severe terms
provided by the law.

VI. (Starting from page 30 of original)

Comparative Roles of These Defendants and the Previously
Convicted Co-Defendants

The defendant Jane Kember was, during the periods relevant to
the charges of which she was convicted, the Guardian World- Wide
of the Church of Scientology. Her principal role was to
"Protect" and "defend" Scientology from all persons and
organiza-tions, private and governmental, whom Scientology
viewed or per-ceived as its enemies. As such -- after L. Ron
Hubbard (the Founder and Commodore), and Mary Sue Hubbard (the
Deputy Commodore, Controller, and Commodore Staff Guardian) --
she was superior in authority to everyone else within the
Guardian's Office. By the defense's own witnesses this Court was
told that the defendant Kember ruled with an iron hand the whole
Guardian's Office net-work which stretched through dozens of
countries in almost every continent in the world.

Prior to assuming her position as Guardian World-Wide in the
late 1960s, the defendant Kember served as the Deputy Guardian
for Intelligence (later renamed Information) World-Wide a
position assumed about 1967 by her loyal and hard working deputy
and now co-defendant -- Morris Budlong. Thus, both defendants
Kember and Budlong are long-standing, committed and dedicated
high officials of the Guardian's Office. It was unchallenged at
their trial that these two defendants took a leading role in
every endeavor of the Guardian's Office, They drafted, reviewed
and issued every order which commanded the commission of
criminal acts. They de-manded total and absolute loyalty and
obedience from their sub-ordinates, awarded them when they
obtained it, punished them when they did not. They demanded to
be kept Informed of every move made by their underlings through
an elaborate system of weekly reports and emergency telex
messages when the need arose.

Everyone of the other defendants previously convicted after a
non-jury trial based on an uncontested stipulation of evidence,
with the exception of Mary Sue Hubbard, were below them in the
hierarchy of the Guardian's Office and carried out the orders of
these two defendants. Seven of the other eight defendants
sub-ordinate to Kember and Budlong were convicted of one felony
count carrying a maximum term of incarceration of five years in
prison and a $10,000 fine. In December, 1979, five of them
received sen-tences of four years incarceration and $10,000
fines; the other two received sentences of five years in prison
and $10,000 fines.

The defendants Kember and Budlong, on the other hand, were each
found guilty following a five-week jury trial, of nine counts of
burglary in the second degree -- felonies each carrying terms of
incarceration of "not less than two years nor more than fifteen
years." 22 D.C. Code § 1801(b). We submit that the sentences
this Court will impose upon the defendants Kember and Budlong
must be both commensurate with their role in the crimes of which
they were convicted as well as with the sentences imposed upon
their previously convicted co-defendants.